A 22-year-old Fremont woman accidentally shot herself at an indoor shooting range in town last week, Milpitas Police Department reported.

On March 10 at about 7:43 p.m., Milpitas police responded to Target Masters shooting range at 122 Minnis Circle on a report of a person being shot. Upon investigation, officers determined the woman was shooting a gun for the first time, when an ejected bullet casing landed in her shirt, police said.

The first-time shooter attempted to remove the hot casing from her clothing while holding the gun and it accidentally discharged. Police said the woman was shot in the leg and transported to a local hospital for treatment and she is expected to survive. There were no other reported injuries.

This is the second time in about two months that someone has accidentally shot themselves at Target Masters.

On Jan. 31, a 48-year-old San Jose woman was the victim of an apparent accidental shooting at the indoor range.

A preliminary investigation revealed the woman may have mishandled a firearm, causing it to accidentally discharge. The woman was shot in the torso and transported to a local hospital for treatment. The victim survived and there were no other reported injuries in that case, police said.

Target Masters staff would not comment about either of the incidents.

Of course we have the usual downplaying of the shooter's responsibility. The report said while she was playing hot potato with the ejected shell, the gun "accidentally discharged." Why do people keep saying the media is biased AGAINST guns. This is the kind of reporting I usually see.

Naturally, Target Masters doesn't want to comment on the TWO recent incidents of this nature. Any attention placed on them might make people wonder how frequent are these "accidents" and how safe are these shooting ranges.

I wonder if all the guys like Mike W., who became defensive about my comments to Breda will also support this Target Masters shooter? Let's see.

11 comments:

The report said while she was playing hot potato with the ejected shell, the gun "accidentally discharged." Why do people keep saying the media is biased AGAINST guns. This is the kind of reporting I usually see.

I still don't see why you perceive that kind of reporting to be "pro-gun." In this case, I don't see it as "anti-gun," either--merely a journalist's ignorance.

As for the shooter--she messed up, obviously--but her mistake is, I think, somewhat understandable. Open collars are less than ideal for range wear. I hope I can be forgiven for a somewhat risqué, but humorous, photo (be sure to check the photo, Mikeb, before approving the comment. If you decide it's not appropriate, I won't beat you up over it).

If she came to the range with a more experienced shooter, to be introduced to shooting, the more experienced shooter should have kept the situation better controlled.

As to your speculation about "how safe are these shooting ranges," they're as safe as the shooters. They can't have range personnel hovering behind every shooter, ready to spring at the first sign of unsafe behavior.

Zorro, Thanks for the link. It's good to spice up the old blog from time to time. But could your finding that picture humorous be an indication of some less-than-acceptable macho attitude towards women, some misogyny perhaps? Remember one of the undercover gun show reports claimed there's a lot of that going around as well as the racist stuff. What do you think, as a individual, I mean?

Zorro, Thanks for the link. It's good to spice up the old blog from time to time. But could your finding that picture humorous be an indication of some less-than-acceptable macho attitude towards women, some misogyny perhaps? Remember one of the undercover gun show reports claimed there's a lot of that going around as well as the racist stuff. What do you think, as a individual, I mean?

Nice try, Mikeb--not so long ago, you would have succeeded in your attempt to bait me into being angry over your ridiculous implication of misogyny on my part.

Luckily, I do eventually learn, and now I can dismiss it as just another case of your odd sense of humor.

Zorro observed, "Luckily, I do eventually learn, and now I can dismiss it as just another case of your odd sense of humor."

I'm glad about that, but actually, short of being baited into anger, this could reopen that discussion of what actually goes on at gun shows and where do the attendees stand on issues like racism and misogyny.

In you're case it probably doesn't matter anyway, because you are an individual.

. . . this could reopen that discussion of what actually goes on at gun shows and where do the attendees stand on issues like racism and misogyny.

It could, but what would be the point? There is no uniform "gun show attendees' position" on issues like racism and misogyny. Are there racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. at gun shows? I have no doubt that there are, just as there are at grocery stores, sporting events, corporate boardroom meetings, etc.

You don't have to be a hardcore believer in individualism to reject the ridiculous notion that people should somehow accept some responsibility for unsavory attitudes held by some of the people who shop at the same place you do--even if it could somehow be shown that such attitudes were much more prevalent at gun shows than within the general population (which I doubt).

I am quick to emphasize my individuality, but I don't consider myself unusual in that regard. I certainly hope that the vast majority of people aren't so bereft of an identity that they're reduced to nibbling at whatever crumbs of personhood they can extract from whatever group they associate themselves with.

You accuse me of donning my mantle of individualism as an intellectual smokescreen to "exonerate" myself from my "shared responsibilities," but I see it as donning the mantle of 100% responsibility for my own words and actions. If it turns out in the end that this works out well for me--that I come out looking better if judged purely on what I do and say, than I would if I "shared my responsibility" more widely, I would think that means I'm mostly doing things right, wouldn't it?

Finally (and I realize this is getting long), do you subscribe, Mikeb, to any kind of theory of "shared credit," or is it only "responsibility" (which pretty much equals guilt, in this context) that gets shared? In other words, if I can point to a couple gun rights advocates who even you would have to acknowledge are noble, admirable, honorable people, do I get any credit for their virtue, or do I only get the blame for the shitheads?

Zorro, My hat is off to you. That's one of the best comments I've ever read. You are the greatest. You should break out of your isolation and take over some of these movements. I might consider joining myself.

Zorro, My hat is off to you. That's one of the best comments I've ever read. You are the greatest. You should break out of your isolation and take over some of these movements. I might consider joining myself.

Thanks, Mikeb--that's a really nice thing to say. I don't really see myself as the "leader" type, and I think my comment was awfully long-winded to deserve that kind of praise, but I do sincerely appreciate it.

My statement about you accusing "me of donning my mantle of individualism . . . " was based on this comment (my emphasis):

Well, the problem with that is you're not really as much of an individual as you say. I'm assuming you live in the society of your fellows and have a certain amount of interaction with them. Your actions and attitudes impact on those around you.

I think you've exaggerated the individualistic idea, which is convenient because it exonerates you from any complicity. But, I'm afraid it's not that simple.

Maybe I'm misreading that, but it certainly sounds to me pretty much the way I characterized your position when I said:

Thank goodness for technology--I used to get my ass handed to me when debating via semaphore.

You weren't misreading anything, but perhaps you failed to take into account that after my one or two attempts to challenge your "individualism," I found your responses totally convincing.

Hmm--"I do no such thing" seems an odd way to tell me that I had changed your mind, but no matter. Are you saying, then, that I have convinced you about individuality, and the personal responsibility inherent to it?

If so, does that not pose some serious problems for your "shared responsibility" theory?

If not, how about the "shared credit" analog to your "shared responsibility" theory? Do I share in the virtue of Roy Innis, National Chairman (for 40+ years) of the Congress of Racial Equality, and NRA board of directors member?

Sorry, I know it's getting tedious now, but what I said was I did no such thing as accusing you of "donning the mantle of individualism," which to me sounds like what someone does who is not genuine and not sincere. I'm convinced that you are, I'm convinced you're not "donning the mantle" of anything.

About the shared credit, perhaps this is a good way to understand what I say about the other thing. Yes, you would share in that credit, it would color you and the other members of the group. Let's say there's an outstanding member of a team. Don't the team members bask in the glory of his achievements? And if they did things to support him, they rightfully should share in the glory.